February 14 , 2006
A key argument in the proposal of a $140 billion asbestos compensation trust fund is now being met with opposing facts.
Those who propose the bill, which is supported by business and industry interests, say the asbestos fund is needed because a flood of asbestos lawsuits have overrun the nation’s courts. Proponents argue that this overwhelmingly high volume of asbestos lawsuits has begun to choke off access to deserving asbestos victims and to others who have business before the judiciary. According to a new study, the crushing asbestos caseload for lawyers and courts is simply non-existent.
The report from Public Citizen shows that state and federal courts are handling asbestos injury lawsuits adequately. After interviewing judges and attorneys as well as gathering statistical data from states with the highest number of asbestos cases, Public Citizen found no evidence that asbestos caseloads have ever been too much to handle.
Public Citizen President, Joan Claybrook, believes that the federal asbestos trust fund is nothing more than an industry plan to eliminate billions of dollars in corporate liability “under the guise of helping victims.”
The report by Public Citizen also documents that the bill’s supporters are lying to sell their corporate bailout plan. While courts are handling the asbestos caseloads adequately, this does not mean that the proposed trust fund is adequately funded. Since the number of asbestos claims may exceed official projections, the money in this proposed trust fund might not be enough.
The report shows that the asbestos caseload actually declined by 84 percent between 1998 and 2004. Also, the number of asbestos product liability trials in federal courts has dropped down to zero for most recent years.
During this drop in asbestos case numbers, it is also important to note that the courts do have a variety of ways to handle asbestos claims at their disposal. The quickest and easiest methods for handling asbestos cases include electronic filing, expediting of more severe cases, case management orders, and “inactive dockets” which delay any action until a victim shows more serious signs of the asbestos-related disease.
Given these report findings, Public Citizen believes that asbestos cases are not strangling the courts and that those who support the bill should think twice. The proposed asbestos trust fund may do much more harm than good to those who have been seriously injured as a result of asbestos-related illness.
Contact us for more information on asbestos claims.
